IN RE: Alexander B.1 (2011)

Memorandum of Decision

This memorandum is issued following a dispositional hearing after a previous adjudication of neglect.   The Department of Children and Families (DCF) seeks commitment to its Commissioner for placement with maternal grandparents in the State of Maine.   Mother concurs in this request.   Father moves for transfer of guardianship to paternal grandparents.   All motions were consolidated in this trial.

Procedural History

On June 30, 2010, this court (Driscoll, J.) granted a motion for an order of temporary custody (OTC) requested by the Department of Children and Families (DCF) to take into custody four-month-old Alexander B., born February 27, 2010 to Pearl M. (mother) and Zachary B. (father).  On July 9, 2010, service of notice was found and both mother and father, each represented by counsel, were present in court and agreed to have the OTC sustained.   Mother and father entered pro forma denials and the court sustained the OTC and specific steps were ordered for both parents who agreed to accomplish those steps.   Also on this date, the court ordered an expedited interstate compact (ICPC) study be done on the maternal grandparents, Lorrie and Gerald M., of Phillips, ME. Alexander has been in the custody of DCF under an OTC from that date to the present.   At the time the OTC was filed and granted, DCF also filed with the court and served on the parents a neglect petition alleging that Alexander was neglected in that he was being denied proper care and attention, physically, educationally, emotionally or morally (C.G.S. § 46b–120(8)(B) and/or that he was being permitted to live under conditions, circumstances or associations injurious to his well-being (C.G.S. § 46b–120(8)(C)).  On November 3, 2010, father entered a plea of nolo contendere.   On November 23, 2010, mother entered a plea of nolo contendere and the child was adjudicated neglected.

Mother and father have filed separate motions for transfer of guardianship of Alexander to maternal and paternal grandparents respectively.   DCF, however, is seeking commitment of the minor child with placement out of state in Maine with maternal grandparents.   Mother, on January 8, 2011, abandoned her motion for transfer of guardianship and joined DCF's motion for commitment with placement in Maine with maternal grandparents.   These motions are before the court for the dispositional phase of this matter.

The case was tried before this court on January 13, 14 and 21, 2011.   The court heard testimony from Officer Lawrence Watson (East Lyme Police Department), Michael Riske (DCF social worker), Natasha Reed (DCF social worker), Christina Little (DCF social worker), Wynn B. (paternal great grandmother), Suzette B–L. (paternal grandmother and at times in this memorandum referred to as PGM), John L. (paternal grandfather) and Pearl M. (mother).  Thirteen items were entered as full exhibits in the trial.

Previously, notice of the petition was found to have been properly made and mother and father appeared with counsel for the entire trial.   There is no proceeding in any other court regarding the custody of Alexander except PGM's action for custody in the Superior Court dated June 18, 2010 (Docket Number KNO–FA10–4113955–S) and referred to in this memorandum of decision.   This court has jurisdiction.

Finding of Facts:

The primary concern expressed by DCF about the paternal grandparents is their perceived inability safely to protect Alexander with regard to father's persistent threatening, abusive, irrational, and at times violent behavior.   On June 18, 2010, police were dispatched to paternal grandparent's home in response to a reported “domestic” disturbance.   Upon arrival, after some denials, father admitted to the police that he hit mother.   Mother told the police that she and her then three-month-old child, Alexander, were staying at this home temporarily and that on that evening she had been out with her current boyfriend.   When she returned father began yelling at her and at one point picked up Alexander out of his crib.   The argument continued and father threatened to kill mother, her boyfriend, then Alexander and himself.   He then struck mother in the side of her face, knocking her into her son's crib.   Alexander was in father's arms when he did this.   The police ran father's name through the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) and learned that there was a protective order in effect from the State of Maine, which included a no-contact order between mother, the child, and father.   Father was charged with Assault III, Risk of Injury to a Minor, and criminal violation of a protective order.   Paternal grandparents were home on June 18th when all of this happened and had allowed mother, father and child to be together in this house for a few days.   They apparently stood by until their son struck mother, at which time they called the police.   The police officer who testified had responded to calls about father about six times.   Police had responded to this home numerous times, numbering in “double digits.” ²  The most recent call prior to this incident was in March 2010.   Some of the calls came from paternal grandparents.³

Mother and father lived with paternal grandparents following the birth of Alexander but mother moved out in May 2010, and took Alexander with her to Maine to live with maternal grandparents.   While in Maine, mother applied for and received on May 3, 2010, a temporary Order for Protection from Abuse which provided among other things that father was to have no contact with mother and giving mother sole custody of Alexander, and a final hearing was set for May 19, 2010.⁴  On that date PGM traveled to Maine seeking and receiving a continuance of the protective order hearing because her son (father) had been in jail but was now traveling with her to Maine.   She claimed in her testimony that “all I knew was it was some kind of request for protection.” ⁵  She testified that she did not know what was in the protective order because father ripped it up when he was served.   But she knew mother was claiming she had sole custody.⁶  It is difficult to believe that while she and the subject of the protective and custody order, her son, were at the courthouse in Maine that she never ascertained from the clerk's office or while in the courtroom the content of the document father allegedly ripped up.   Even crediting that such is true, however, she knew that something was happening in Maine that might affect custody when she filed an application for ex parte temporary injunction and motion for custody in Connecticut on June 18, 2010,⁷ but made no disclosure of it in the application.   On that same date, the Connecticut Superior Court (Martin, J.) issued an order of protection on behalf of mother with protection from father.⁸  Although PGM asserts that she will not let father live in her house, that is where he was for the at least six arrivals of the police to her home because of father.

DCF did an extensive investigation related to the motion to intervene at the request of the court.⁹  They concluded that they could not recommend that the child be placed in the home of the paternal grandparents due to numerous concerns with domestic violence in the home and mental health issues that would make the paternal grandparents' home not appropriate.   Social worker Little testified about her concerns that maternal grandmother minimizes her son's violent tendencies.   The court got the same impression while listening to the testimony over the three days of trial.   On one occasion father threw a vacuum cleaner at paternal great-grandmother who lives with the family and was arrested as a result of that incident.   Having reviewed all of the exhibits and listened to all of the testimony, the court is convinced that the DCF evaluation of paternal grandparents is correct.   Other than testimony by PGM that father can no longer live in her home, no previous actions to limit his presence in the house were taken by PGM after Alexander was born.   The permanency plan proposed is reunification with a parent or parents, with concurrent planning for termination of parental rights.   Much needs to be done by mother and father to achieve the goal of reunification.   DCF must be involved in this case for that to happen.   DCF would not be involved if guardianship were transferred to paternal grandparents and the child would be living in this turbulent household.

The court finds by a fair preponderance of the evidence that intervening paternal grandparents are not suitable and worthy within the meaning of the statute to receive guardianship of Alexander and to do so would not be in the child's best interest.   The motion to transfer guardianship is denied.

Disposition:

The court finds that the appropriate disposition after adjudication previously entered is commitment to DCF and the child is committed to the commissioner of the Department of Children and Families until further order of the court with out-of-state placement approved for placement in the State of Maine with maternal grandparents upon receipt of the ICPC 100A form as a committed child.   The court finds that this disposition is in the best interest of the child.

Mack, JTR

FOOTNOTES

FN2. FTR, 1–13–11 @ 12:38:20..  FN2. FTR, 1–13–11 @ 12:38:20.

FN3. FTR, 1–13–11 @ 10:43:09.  [FTR (For the Record) is the recording facility of the court reporter which digitally records the testimony of a witness while noting the time of the utterance by hour, minute and second during that day's trial and which can be replayed by the court in chambers at any time.].  FN3. FTR, 1–13–11 @ 10:43:09.  [FTR (For the Record) is the recording facility of the court reporter which digitally records the testimony of a witness while noting the time of the utterance by hour, minute and second during that day's trial and which can be replayed by the court in chambers at any time.]

FN4. Exhibit # 2..  FN4. Exhibit # 2.

FN5. FTR, 1–14–11 @ 12:52:59..  FN5. FTR, 1–14–11 @ 12:52:59.

FN6. FTR, 1–14–11 @ 12:49:26..  FN6. FTR, 1–14–11 @ 12:49:26.

FN7. Exhibit # 10..  FN7. Exhibit # 10.

FN8. Exhibit # BB..  FN8. Exhibit # BB.

FN9. Exhibit # 3..  FN9. Exhibit # 3.

Mack, Michael A., J.T.R.